Medical malpractice vs ordinary negligence; Professional relationship; Medical judgment; Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc; Licensed health facility; MCL 600.5838a; Fiduciary duty; Corporate directors; Murphy v Inman; Fraudulent concealment

In consolidated appeals, the court held that plaintiffs’ claims against defendant-hospital sounded in medical malpractice, not ordinary negligence, and that their claims against the individual defendants also failed. Plaintiffs sued after their child (TW) was seriously injured during spinal-fusion surgery when the bur at the end of a drill allegedly “skipped” and lacerated tissue covering the spinal cord. In the first appeal, the court held that the trial court properly dismissed the ordinary-negligence claim against the hospital (Corewell) because the hospital was a licensed health facility capable of malpractice, the injury occurred during surgery and thus “within the course of a professional relationship,” and the claim raised questions of medical judgment outside common knowledge. The court reasoned that expert testimony would be needed to explain the surgery, the drill and bur, the drill’s proper function and maintenance, and the plausibility of the doctor’s “explanation of the malfunction.” In the second appeal, the court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ later action against hospital officers, directors, and employees was an impermissible collateral attack, but affirmed dismissal on other grounds. The court held that plaintiffs’ theory against the individual defendants depended on their alleged status as hospital employees or agents, and because the allegations “essentially mirror” the allegations against the hospital, they likewise sounded in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence. The court also found that plaintiffs failed to establish a fiduciary-duty claim because they did not show that the individual defendants owed a duty “to act for TW’s benefit rather than for Corewell’s benefit,” and failed to establish fraud because their allegations resembled discovery or spoliation assertions, not fraudulent concealment. Affirmed.